LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
GARY CUNNINGHAM :
(Tuesday, June 10, 8:30 a.m. -10:00 a.m.)
There was NCAA legislative compliance and enforcement procedure at the June 1985 NCAA special convention in New Orleans. The President's Commission exercised its legislative prerogative by introducing a number of reform measures designed to enhance institutional control and promote integrity in the conduct of intercollegiate athletic programs, and out of this legislation came a reorganization of many of the departments of the NCAA. An enforcement department was enhanced as well as the legislative services department, and as we all know, this reorganization is very pertinent to our programs. There have been some seminars in this area conducted this spring and it's a very vital area to all of us. What we have done is broken down this topic into the three areas: compliance, legislative and enforcement and we've allocated IS to 20 minutes for each topic with questions following. If we have time at the end we'll just open it up for general questions of our two NCAA assistant executive directors.
We are very fortunate to have these two men participate with us. Steve Morgan and Bill Hunt, both assistant executive directors with the NCAA, and we are going to lead it off with compliance. Steve Morgan is going to be our first panelist and I would like to just say a few things about Steve. Steve became head of the new organized department of compliance and enforcement in 1985. He has been an assistant executive director of the NCAA since September, 1984, and headed the legislative services department before moving to compliance and enforcement. Mr. Morgan joined the NCAA staff in October 1977 as an enforcement representative after practicing law with a Prairie View, Kansas law firm. Mr. Morgan is a graduate of
the University of Kansas with a bachelor's degree in journalism 1969 and a Juris Doctorate in 1974. Let's welcome Steve Morgan, our first panelist.
Thank you, Gary and good morning everyone. This is interesting to try to come in here and compete with the natural elements outside of this beautiful hotel. I am pleased to see that we have the attendance that we have. I have been down here for two or three days myself, and this is the most beautiful morning I've seen. It's a little tough to come in and sit in a meeting room. So, I appreciate your attendance and, hopefully, we can make this worthwhile. When I came in this morning I intended to tell you that I had developed a great motivational speech that I was going to present on what we needed to do in intercollegiate athletics, but Bill Curry stole it and gave it yesterday. I saw too many familiar faces out there and I knew that nobody here would believe that I could give that speech, so I'll pass on that. I do hope that most of you heard the luncheon speaker yesterday. I thought it was an excellent speech
and maybe helps us focus a little bit more again on what it is that involves all of us in intercollegiate athletics and what can make this worthwhile. I hope that we can all draw on the things that we'll learn in here and find some way to provide even greater service and help to the young people of this world who get involved in intercollegiate athletic programs.
We are here today, not so much to provide motivation, but try to provide you with some information about howan institution can be helped in its efforts to comply with NCAA rules and regulations. I think it can be assumed from your attendance here this morning that you are interested in rules and compliance and, hopefully, we can provide some help and assistance in staying in that compliance status.
I think it is possible to have a successful program within the rules or I wouldn't be involved in what we are trying to do in the national office. We are in a computer age,that fact is not lost on anyone as information movement, handling of data becomes more and more sped up and mechanical all the time. But in this computer age, we have a term that is called user friendly; generally implying that it can be readily understood and put to use by any of us without advance computer degrees. I would like to think that what we are trying to develop in the national office in the compliance area, particularly, and the other areas that we will talk to you about this morning, is a user friendly service for each of you to take advantage of. I think there has been a problem in the past sometimes; a reluctance to take advantage of services
from the national office, particularly in the department that I head, which used to be called enforcement and is now compliance enforcement.
There is a certain intimidation factor that you better not be too candid in talking with the enforcement department or they may penalize you for it. Hopefully, that is not the case, particularly on the compliance side of the department. We are really interested in trying to find help. All of us
on the national office staff were hired~ to provide a service to you, the members of the NCAA. We really are all in this together and on the same team; and interested in trying to make intercollegiate athletics a better environment, for not only us, but the student-athletes who participate.
As Gary indicated, last summer I think most of you probably were in attendance at what has been characterized as a historic NCAA convention in New Orleans. At that convention a number of legislative proposals were adopted, really not so much to play on new ground, as to reaffirm a commitment to the conduct of orderly intercollegiate athletics programs. Legislation was adopted to provide some new tools to chief executives in monitoring and maintaining institutional control of their programs. We'll talk about later in the program some changes which were made in the enforcement area. Shortly after that convention adjourned, I Executive Committee in its annual budget meetings, authorized the creation of a compliance section in what had been the enforcement department. The idea was that there had been a gap in the services provided by the nationaloffice. We had enforcement to chase around those rule violators and process cases to allow the Committee on Infractions to impose penalties, and we had a legislative services staff which could answer specific questions and could assist an institution or conference in developing a legislative proposal. But there was really no broad-based program to assist in an institution looking at its program, looking at particular aspects of its program and developing monitoring techniques; structural changes that might assist in keeping the rules complied with by the program. So, the Executive Committee, seeing the compliance element missing, approved the creation of a compliance section in the enforcement department, and that department was renamed compliance and enforcement. I took the job as head of that department and moved John Leavens, whom many of you know, to the director of compliance. John has day-to-day supervisory authority over some of the programs that we are going to talk about this morning. and really is your primary contact in the national office.
As you know. many of the things that compliance is doing are dictated by the actions of the special convention. Among the programs adopted was the institutional self-study guide. Now. hopefully. institutio received this document. It was mailed in mid-May. It's printed. It's a guide to use in conducting the in&t~tu~ional self-study. It is broken down into nine basic areas of concern running from the institution's purpose in athletics philosophy through the kinds of programs in place to assist student-athletes; how the program is organized; how the financial\ aid is organized; how academic eligibility criteria are monitored; all of those elements are in the self-study guide. The mailing to the institutions also included a user's guide which. hopefully, will provide some assistance in taking advantage of the self-study so that it can benefit the institution. I think it really has a twofold purpose. The chief executive. who may not have been that well-informed about the athletic program. can get a handle on some of the areas about which he or she should be concerned.
The guide itself can be used to make an in-depth study of the institution's program and determine whether there are areas in which red flags are being raised to indicate the potential problems, even if
they don't exist at that time. This is a tool for use on the campus. This is not a document that after its completion, it's filed in the national office. It is not an enforcement tool in disguise. It is something that really can be a benefit to an institution. Like so many things, of course, the benefit derived from it is going to be directly related to the effort given to the examination. So, in order for
it to be of real value, it's going to require more than superficial reading and just yes or no answers to the questions. I think committees with broad-based cross-sectional representation across the campus, faculty, administration, athletes and students, are going to have to look at the self-study and work hard in developing appropriate answers. The questions are designed so that a negative response to a question should raise a red flag or cause questioning. It doesn't necessarily mean there is a problam. It doesn't necessarily mean there is a rule violation, but it means that something should be looked into to determine whether additional steps need to be taken. Each of the questions has a gravity weighting to it ranging frol minor to grave. The idea is to indicate what areas institutions should be most concerned with. So that mailing is out. We hope that institutions are beginning to use it. It's a once in every five years
exercise and the first five years won't expire until '91, so there is considerable time to accomplish this. I think it would be valuable to get into it as soon as possible.
Another part of the compliance area that was mandated by last summer's convention is a financial audit. Now that's an annual exercise each institution has decided through overwhelming adoption by the convention of this legislation, that a financial audit of its entire athletic program and all firms extended for in behalf of that program, either by the institution or by outside booster groups, will be audited and an accounting of those audits will be presented to the chief executive officer. It is an audit that will be conducted by an outside qualified auditor and that person would be selected by the chief executive. A mailing will go out at the end of this week. It's a little different than the institutional self-study area because of the mailing that will be distributed. It's not a form. It's not mandatory guidelines. It is merely guidelines that would, hopefully, provide some help to an institution in trying to determine how best to conduct this audit. Athletic programs around the country are so varied in the ways they are funded, and the way they are structured for budget purposes, that it is very difficult to develop anything that would apply to the full 800 member institution public. But there has been an effort to develop guidelines that can provide directions to anyone who is going to seriously take on the audit requirements. The guidelines, to be mailed to you later this week, were developed in conjunction with the National Association of College and University Business Officers and with the American Institute of CPAs. That second body typically develops guidelines and standards for
practice in the accounting and audit field, so they have considerable expertise in these areas and they've assisted directly in developing these guidelines. A good part of the guidelines, and you will see this when you receive them, are written in accounting terminology and really are intended more for passing on to the individual who will perform the audit than they are for really being fully digested by the chief executive or those involved in athletics administration.
But we hope that these guidelines will be helpful. and keep in mind that they are guidelines and
not directives. This is somewhat current because the legislation was announced that the special convention last year requires the audit for every fiscal year beginning on or after July I. 1985. so we should be getting toward the end of the first fiscal year for which this audit is required. Again. the guidelines should be helpful and should provide some answers to questions. The national office compliance staff also is available to try to help you with questions that may result. Again. I should note that this is an exercise that has its value as an informational tool on campus. It's not something filed in the national office and it's not a disguised enforcement tool. It is strictly for the help of the chief executive and would be retained on the campus.
A third element out 0£ the special convention was the Division I academic reporting form. That form was mailed to member institutions at the end of May and is to be filed for the first time by October I, 1986. We are still approximately four months from the first filing of that form. Its format is basically dictated by the legislation. It requires the reporting of information about admission standards and the numbers of special admit tees and requires information specifically about the academic qualifications of entering
students in football and men's basketball. It requires information reporting on the status of students
who participated in athletics in one year; what happened to those people the following year? How many of them graduated? How many of them are still participating? How many of them wandered away from the program? It's a survey that would help a chief executive understand how well the athletic program is retaining the student-athletes that it has recruited into it. A major element of the reporting form also will be the graduation rate; graduation rate not only for student-athletes but an overall graduation rate for the student body to try to provide a standard for comparison between how the athletes are doing academically as compared to the student body generally.
Now this first year's form will be based on the graduation rate of the students who entered in the
fall of 1980, the 1980-81 class who had graduated five years later, which basically means by the end of the summer term of 1985. To those of you in Division I, which is the only division to which this applies, these dates as to what classes should be encompassed in the form were much discussed and debated in the legislation, and was finally modified to essentially provide data a year after the fact, but to permit it so that institutions could collect it rather than having it for the period immediately before the form was filed. So that form is out. It is complex. It's complex because the legislation just lists in paragraph form
the requirements of it. This form is filed in the national office. Since I've been saying it about the others, I should say again, it is not an enforcement tool. It is being filed in the national office because it's information that is going to be compiled on a national basis so that each institution not only can look internally at itself and how its student-athletes are doing in comparison to other students, but it can look at its student-athletes in comparison with student-athletes across the country. The compilation will be broken down by types of institutions as well as a total national figure, so that if you are a private institution, you can compare that to other private institutions. If you are an institution located in the Southeast, you can look at other inst'itutions located in the Southeast. We'll look at size of enrollment also as a breakdown in the compilation. All of this is to be done anonymously. The list published
nationally won't list 285 Division I schools by name and their graduation rate. It will be assembled on a confidential basis.
The information gathered will be of help to the association as a whole in developing Division I, or for that matter other divisions' academic proposals in the future. We won't be so off in dealing with speculation about how student-athletes are doing academically. We'll have some hard data that will help indicate where a tune up of the legislative proposal is necessary. We have a number of other programs. I realize we are moving along here. I want to leave some time for questions and I'II just briefly outline other compliance programs that over the long haul should be of some considerable help to member institutions.
We are in the process right now with our compliance staff of contacting a number of institutions, in fact, I have talked to some of you here who we have already been contacted for help. We have a compliance staff trying to assemble models and resources in a variety of topics; firm institutions that are doing a good job now. At least it appears from our office they are doing a good job now in monitoring and controlling particular aspects of the programs. What we would like to be able to do is develop a resource center in the national office so that an institution that has concerns about whether it is adequately monitoring financial aid, or monitoring athletic progress, or maintaining adequate control over booster organizations; if those are questions on the campus, we would like to have a resource center based on a gathering of information from successful programs across the country. We'll have a data base that you can look at. We can say, "Here are some alternatives that might be helpful to you in treating concerns in your own program." We hope that way we can do some things before problems arise so that instead of having to deal with the enforcement section of the department, we can be dealing on a more positive level trying to correct potential areas of problems. We are also hopeful that once we have had a chance to develop these
resources and models and get a good library put together in the national office, we can also be available or ca~ assign retired or active athletics administrators who have done a good job in the past to work with an institution to look at its own program and determine whether there are areas of concern.
As a compliance staff, we are currently and will continue in the future to work with institutions that have gone through the enforcement process and face penalties and disciplinary action for problems in their programs. If those institutions want and need help in getting back on track, we are going to
have the same kind of resources that we have been talking about to help those programs. And, really all tl is required to take advantage of that situation is evidence of a good faith effort on the part of the institution to get back in compliance and a desire to have the assistance of the national office staff. In some instances the Committee on Infractions has even been suggesting or mandating that this take place whel there appears to the committee to be considerable confusion in a particular area of the program.
We have a certification of compliance annual mailing which has just recently gone out again; that's the documents filed in the fall which each student signs. This year, you may recall, is going to take on a little added significance because it has a consent to drug testing in it. Drug testing at the national championship level is a part of the student-athlete's statement signed each year and that again is requir4 by the drug testing legislation which was adopted last year. So, it will be ~ part of the statement that 4 athlete is asked to sign before competition in the fall. I think in the interest of time, I'll stop there and will be glad to entertain any questions that you might have about any of these programs or anything else you are interested in.
JIM MURPHY (GEORGIA TECH):
I had a question that related to the financial audit guidelines that we are about to receive, specifically as they relate to monitoring booster club activities. Are the guidelines going to have very specific language and very specific procedures or is the language going to be more like generally agreed upon procedures. Is it going to be fairly nebulous or specific?
Boy, I don't know if I want to admit to it being nebulous, but accounting language tends to be that way. Yes it does to some extent. It's going to be more the latter in the sense that it does involve minimum agreed upon procedures that were arrived at in discussion in this area. Normally in order for
an auditor to sign off on an audit and verify that it is an accurate one, it involves a very detailed stud: so that auditor is satisfied that an outside booster group or any other entity that he audits is really as he represents it to be. In this case, it was thought that the cost of doing that might make it prohibitiv, and some institutions would just throw up their hands and not get involved in it. So, we worked with the auditors to try to develop some minimum agreed upon procedures that involved tests which are set forth in the guidelines with some specificity that an auditor can conduct in regard to a program. He can come away from it with at least a good sense of how that program is being conducted, and reports to the chief executive officer. The chief executive can make a decision whether he wants to look further or whether
he is satisfied with that level of review. These procedures have been agreed upon by the AICPA. If other questions occur later in the program, I'm sure we can come back and pick those up. Thank you very much.
GARY CUNNINGHAM :
,Thank you Steve. Our next area is legislative services. Our panelist is Bill Hunt who is assistant executive director at the NCAA. Bill Hunt joined the NCAA staff in September, 1972 as an investigator and later served as executive assistant to Warren S. Brown when Brown headed the enforcement department. Hunt was promoted to the department head position when Brown left the NCAA staff in May, 1977. Hunt served as assistant executive director responsible for enforcement until October, 1985 when he became head of the association's legislative services department. He is a graduate of Texas Christian University and has a law degree from Southern Methodist University.
Thank you very much. Good morning. I got off to a good start this morning. I was walking down 1 hall and one of my friends from my years of work with the NCAA in college athletics stopped me in the hl and said, "You know Bill, this is the nicest morning that w~'ve had since we've been out here. The sun is shining. It's beautiful. It's perfect to play golf. Is there any way that you can adjust the sche( and let's go play golf now and then you'll be on when it rains later tonight?" I checked on that and I
haven't been able to make the adjustment yet, but what we can do is work through our program in fairly! order and maybe the weather will hold up.
Briefly we went through the current issues forms and I know that some of you were involved in some of those different sessions. We had one in Chicago and those of you who were in Chicago have heard this
story, but I want to share it with you again because it involves a director of athletics. It illustrates the problems that directors of athletics have; in fact that all of us have. I don't know if Tom Niland
is in this group this morning or not, but the story involves Tom, who is director of athletics at LeMoyne College in New York. I got to know Tom when he became involved in the work of the NCAA Committee on Infractions, and for those of you who do not know Tom Niland, he is a strong-minded fellow who is not
afraid to go ahead and speak his mind. He has been a good solid member of the Committee on Infractions. He is a war veteran. He's got a lot of pride and when he was in his solid days, apparently he was a
tremendous athlete. All we had to go by are the stories that we've heard from Tom about how many touchdowns he scored and how well he ran. We understood all along he was really a pretty good athlete, but, of
course, we never really had a chance to know. We never had a chance to see that demonstrated until about a year ago when Frank Remington from the University of Wisconsin, who is the chair of the Committee on Infractions, David Berst, Tom Niland and I had a chance to play golf. We were participating in this particular outing and thoroughly enjoying it. I am not a very proficient golfer but I do enjoy the sport and on
one hole, I happened to hit a drive that did go down the middle and landed in the middle of the fairway. I didn't hit it as long as Niland did, but his ball went off to the right to the edge of the woods. Well, he and Frank Remington had a golf cart and they drove it up into the woods and I was standing in the middle of the fairway. I knew that I was supposed to hit next. I had been carefully schooled by the better golfers
like Berst about how to play the game. I know that you keep your head down and you watch the ball. You keep your eye on the ball. I was using a three wood and I swung as well as I can and got all of it. For me it was a nice shot and as I followed through, I looked up and to my utter amazement here came a golf cart. Tom
Niland and Frank Remington's cart came right across the middle of the fairway with nobody in it. Apparently, as they had gone up the hill they left the brake off and they were looking for one of the balls. I guess Tom shot and the cart came right across the middle of the fairway and running after it as fast as he can
run is Niland. This is my first chance to see the athletic ability of Tom Niland and he could run. He was running as hard and as fast as he possibly could, and what was particularly ironic about all of this is that he ran exactly as fast as the cart. He was about two feet behind it. My ball cleared the cart and his head by just a few feet; went right over him and, thank goodness, everybody was alright. He preceeded to run all the way across the fairway as fast as he could two feet behind the cart all the way. This story has a good ending because the cart was headed right for a big tree and I thought this was like the movies. I've never seen anything like this in real life. I thought this cart is going to smash right into the tree. Well, it hit a root at the bottom of the tree, spun around the tree and came right back, passed Tom and he jumped in and drove back across like nothing happened. I admire his composure.
That's a true story, unembellished, and it illustrates to me the problem that probably all of us have
in life and I think particularly directors of athletics in intercollegiate athletics at this time. It takes all the running you can do just to try to keep up, and sometimes you feel like you are never going to catch up; that you are never going to get into the cart. I remember Alice in Wonderland had that famous comment
that it takes all the running we can do to stay in the same place. But, we would like to pick things up to enable you to get in the cart before it hits the tree. That's what Steve Morgan and I both have in mind. We are hoping that we can do something that will help you.
Now in legislative services, the first thing that we did in the past year was to expand the staff and get more people involved to answer that telephone and answer your letters and try to get a more timely
response to you. We also developed a new telephone policy that we think will not only help with the burden of calls that come into the national office, but also will help you with the institutional control of your programs. What we found over the years was that we would have situtations where a coach might disagree with the answer that he gets from the director of athletics, or that she gets from the director of athletics, and then call our office and get an interpretation that might be a little bit different. Perhaps the question would be asked in a slightly different way. The coach would then go back to the director of athletics and say, "The NCAA office isn't saying the same thing that you are saying." We are getting inconsistent interpretations, and by the time we finish, we might end up with three or four phone calls on an issue that could have been settled by one phone call if it had been handled correctly in the first place. So we are hoping with the new telephone policy, which I believe all of you are familiar with, that we will get the director of athletics or his designated representative, like assistant director who is involved in the
primary responsibility for interpretation, directly involved in the interpretation process so that we'll
have institutional control of the program and an understanding by the key administrators in the athletics department about what's going on with the rules. We also have the primary women's administrator, the faculty representative and the CEO who can be involved in this policy. As you know, you can substitute for the
director of athletics and you can substitute for the CEO. Many institutions, since their presidents normally don't call for interpretations, have substituted for the CEO. We believe the system is working very well.
The calls seem to be more under control and I think it helps very much in the consistency in the interpretation.
It isn't enough, though, just to get to you specific and individual answers. Even if it's
correct and even if it's quick, that won't resolve the whole problem, because some of you are much more conscientious than others. You may call in for an interpretation, you get it and you understand what to do
and you do what's right. The guy down the road doesn't know what the answer is, and so he can plead ignorance.
We are trying to figure out what we can do to solve that problem and get interpretations out to everyone on a broa~er scale where they apply the same way to everyone in a timely fashion.
In terms of high tech, as Steve mentioned before, we are into that era and we are thinking about using the computer to computerize our interpretations for the last 10 or lS years. If you had a question about recruiting, we could call it up and get all the previous interps and do that quickly. We are thinking about using an electronic mailbox service, if that's feasible, where institutions and conferences could contact our office and if we had a hot interp, we could get it on the electronic mailbox. We could get it out
there to everybody in a very short period of time where it would apply across the board to everyone. We hav4 those proposals before the Executive Committee that will be considered at the Executive Committee's August meeting. I think we will make progress in those areas.
In the meantime, we are trying to do what we can. I hope you have had a chance to get every current interpretation that might be of general interest to the membership in the legislative assistance column.
If you are not in the habit already of taking that legislative assistance column and clipping it from the I News, it's in almost every edition, and it is numbered so that you can tell whether or not you have missed a particular column. I certainly would encourage you either to clip that yourself or have someone in your athletics department clip it and keep it on file. That will give you the most up-to-date current interpretations. Another reason you need to do that is because not everyone of those interpretations in the legislative assistance column ends up in the NCAA manual. Some are turned into case form and end up being put in the blue pages in the back of the manual, but others are not, and theft your only reference under those circumstances is your compilation of the legislative assistance columns. So if you don't have those columns, please let us know if we can help get them for you. I'm sure the conference office would h, it.
In regard to the interpretative and legislative process. I think virtually everybody in this group is a veteran of years of experience in working with college athletics. I don't think I need to go through the interpretative and legislative process. r will say that if you feel that an interpretation is inappropriatE and you don't think that is the way that the rule ought to work. or you don't think it's practical. then I certainly would encourage you to contact our office and let us know. Give us a chance to go back through the system and have it analyzed again. We have done that with interpretations and changed them. We can do it again. I don't want you to ever feel that you are locked in with the interpretations that you receive through the legislative assistance columns. I hope you will give us a chance to look at them again if you have questions about them.
Right now, I would say that the most difficult interpretative area that we have is the so-called partj qualifier, the interpretations involving a partial qualifier. That's a term I use to describe the indivic who is not a nonqualifier, one who doesn't meet the requirements of the new bylaw. You know that we have
the in-between status, the partial qualifier who doesn't have the core curriculum or doesn't have a test score, and so he or she would not be eligible to practice or play, but the partial qualifier could receive financial aid. We've had lots of questions about what kind of financial aid can a partial qualifier recei, without utilizing a year of eligibility. What kind of practice activities can a partial qualifier be invo] in under the rules? We have tried to answer those in the legislative assistance column. I won't go into ~ of those in details, but I will be glad to stay to answer any questions during this meeting that you might have. If you want to talk to me privately about any of these issues, I'll be glad to stick around after ti meeting and talk to you about these most recent interpretations.
I do want to share with you the most recent one which occurred on the last Administrative Committee call. As you know. Will Bailey of Auburn. Jack Davis from Oregon State. Judy Sweet from California-San Die! Lou Cryer and Asa Green are all on the Administrative Committee and are studying the partial qualifier.
who is able to participate in certain practice activities, and if you read the legislative assistance colum those practice activities involve weight lifting with the strength coach and they involve all the academic activities like study halls and tutoring and guidance counseling; the question was asked whether or not the nonqualifier can participate in those same activities. The Administrative Committee has ruled that the nonqualifier cannot be involved in any way in the weight lifting program or in these academic services activities. The Administrative Committee also indicated that the partial qualifier who does not receive athletically-related financial aid, and therefore does not use a season of eligibility as a freshman. also cannot participate in the weight lifting activities and academic activities. The only person who is not a qualifier and who can participate in these activities is the one who is going to receive athletically-rela aid and has it count as a year of eligibility. I wanted to share that interpretation with you.
Now in terms of legislative issues for this year, I think probably the two paramount issues in legislation for this year are financial aid and recruiting. Steve Morgan is going to work with the financj special council subcommittee to review financial aid and they are thinking about issues like moving the financial aid limits from the constitution to the bylaws where each division can vote on the financial aid limits separately. You know we have had lots of concerns back and forth about whether or not to accept Fe]
Grants and certainly there is a strong school of thought that each division ought to be able to determine
an issue like that on its own in the recruiting area. I think this could be a very interesting year for the examination of recruiting issues. The CFA just completed a meeting where they discussed in detail recruiting issues and it made several good suggestions in regard to that. The NCAA Recruiting Committee has examined the issues and it also has their recommendations. I thought it might be of interest to you since this probably will come up at the 1987 convention and might, in part at least, be the focal point of that convention. I thought you might be interested in what some of these issues are. We have a special NCAA subcommittee that will examine recruiting. First, a subcommittee is going to try to think of ways that we can write the picture, spend less money and put the emphasis in the right place in the recruiting process. Even though our first meeting won't occur until a couple of weeks from now, we are thinking that it may be necessary to overhaul the whole process and just look at it from a completely different way.
Now with that as background, here are some of the things at which we are looking. One possibility is to get boosters out of recruiting completely. We already had them out in terms of off-campus contacts. There certainly is a school of thought that boosters should not be involved in on-campus recruiting.
Secondly, we are thinking about limiting the contact and evaluation periods more than we already are, and in that regard, one suggestion is to simply eliminate and not have any off-campus recruiting. I know that seems like a radical suggestion, but there is some thought that if you really wanted to save money, if you really wanted to set the picture in perspective, that you just eliminate off-campus recruiting. We would authorize recruiting items like video tapes that you could send to a prospect. They could look at a description of
the campus, a description of the athletics program and they could make determinations from that, from letters and from phone calls about how they wanted to.go from there. I'm not saying that this will happen, but I am saying that it's under consideration. I can already tell that you like that proposal. You are ready to vote for it right now. You are going to have to wait until January. Now don't get eager.
A third proposal is to continue to raise academic standards and the thought here is that there is a correlation, a definite correlation, between the academic interest of student-athletes and the vulnerability to getting involved in violations of NCAA legislation. It has been my own experience in enforcement and legislative services that the information I've seen and heard about and have been involved with firsthand in terms of violations and infractions, do tend to run those individuals who do not have an academic plan, do not have academic priorities; in fact more of these individuals if you ask them what they are going to do
with their lives after college, they will give you the same answer. They say they are going into professional basketball or professional football. It doesn't matter if they don't have any chance at all for a successful professional athletics career, realistically. It doesn't matter if the statistics show clearly that 97, 98, 99 percent of the student-athletes iq NCAA schools never had a professional athletics career. Still, they believe that and they go ahead and put all of their eggs into one basket. So there is another possibility.
A fourth possibility is to keep the head coach out of recruiting off-campus even if you let other
coaches recruit off campus. Another possibility is to keep high school coaches out of institutions' summer camps and the thought is some of these institutions use their summer camps to hire high school coaches and pay them a lot more money than they actually would be warranted under the circumstances. They use it for a recruiting advantage. That is a possibility. Another one is to eliminate host families for student-athletes and have a rule that simply precludes a situtation where you can assign a family to take care of a student- athlete once he or she enrolls in your school. What we have noticed is that when this happens, even though
it's all supposed to be legit and up front and above board, as soon as the student-athlete needs money to go home, or needs mondey for a date, he goes to the host family and asks for it, and it is sympathetic and then
the problem starts. So one alternative is just to eliminate that arrangement completely. We are also thinking about creating a special category for prospective student-athletes who have signed national letters of intent.
We've had lots of questions about what you can send a prospect after he or she has signed a national letter of intent and what you can do with them. You know we have an exception to the contact rule that
permits unlimited contact after a prospect has signed. We have had some eligibility situations that just
seemed a little bit impractical even to go through because they involved individuals who have signed national letters. The question of a recruiting advantage is hard to establish once somebody has actually signed with an institution, so we are wondering if we might create another category.
Another alternative is tied in with the reporting of coaches' income. The thought is that this is indirectly a recruiting issue, because when you don't have any reporting of coaches' income, you can have
a situation where you have no institutional control of what the Coach in football or basketball may be doing. We have had reports that there are some coaches receiving over $500,000 a year. I heard of one supposedly pulling in about $850,000 a year from different arrangements. It isn't the amount so much as how that is done and whether or not there might be a conflict of interest. I've seen stories in the newspaper where they
have quotes attributed to coaches who say, "My goodness, they can't look at that. Nobody in America should limit anybody's salary." I understand the freedom to earn as much as you can, but at the same time, and this has been reported in our office, a basketball coach may take $20,000 and put it in his pocket in order to switch a game that was at home and make it an away game. Do you think that is appropriate? Do you think
that the coach ought to get $20,000 in his own pocket to agree to make one of his home games an away I There are some people who don't think that's appropriate. Hopefully, that represents institutional C( and I do think it represents a conflict of interest. The question here is whether all of this income accrues to these coaches ought to be reported so that at least everybody knows what is going on.
Finally, you have the old question about freshman eligibility and how that relates to the whole recruiting process and whether we might not be better off if freshmen didn't play the first year. You migl have less pressure and you might have more stability in your program. I'm sure that you have noticed that the Big 10 Conference has indicated that it may enc9urage the implementation of that proposal with the President's Commission. Those are some of the topics that will be considered in the recruiting discussioni I would be very interested while I am here with you, not necessarily right now in this meeting where we arl short of time, but I hope that you wouldn't hesitate to stop me and share with me your thoughts about thesl recruiting issues and let me know what you think. I would love to take it to the meeting of that special subcommittee. I hope you will talk to them and share your ideas with them how you think we can improve th, recruiting process.
I want to leave you with one other thought in regard to the effort that we are making to try to help to change intercollegiate athletics in some ways that will make life easier for you. We are doing somethi that I think you have wanted us to do for a long time, and that is, we are making a strong effort to revis the NCAA Manual. I wanted you to know that Will Bailey of Auburn is heading up that group. They are maki a very strong effort. They meet virtually every month. They are taking every rule in the book and reorga ing it in a way that they hope will make it simpler and easier for you to read and to understand. I want
ask you if you have any suggestions about ways to improve the manual; if you have any suggestions about ru that ought to be eliminated in the manual. If you have been sitting there thinking that there were rules are unenforceable, this is an excellent chance for you to do that. If you will just let us know what you believe the problem to be, we will try to take that through the committee and see if we can deregulate and simplify the manual in a way that you like. Also, if you have any charts or any graphic illustrations
that you use to illustrate how the manual works, we are interested in including those in the revised manua We would be glad to have those from you for examples and possibly for inclusion in the revised manual. WE are hoping that we will have that for you next year. It is a monumental task if you could see the stacks papers and look at everyone of those rules. But this committee is doing it and it is working hard. Witt those thoughts in mind, I'll stop. I want you to know that the effort is there in legislative services aI in compliance and enforcement to try to help, and we are trying to implement some new ideas that will helI you. Thank you very much.
Thank you Bill. The last area of our program is enforcement, and we are going to have Steve Morgan come back and talk about the enforcement area of the NCAA.
Thank you again Gary. We've talked about some of the programs that we've tried to help in the positive sense through compliance and legislative services. We also have, as I'm sure many of you know, enforcement program. The idea of the enforcement program is to help provide some incentives to take the actions necessary to stay in rule compliance. We've expanded slightly the enforcement staff. We have ir place for the first time 12 full-time investigators. We have a staff of part-time investigators who are available for basically quick jobs out in most of the major metropolitan areas of the country. At an) one given time we may have 30 to 40 active cases that we are working on to try to bring to a conclusion. A special convention last year, in addition to addressing the compliance and legislative services issues we've talked about, took some decisive action on enforcement.
Specifically, some new procedures were adopted to basically reaffirm the association's commitment t a meaningful enforcement program. The proposals did not, as I said earlier about the compliance effort, not so much establish new penalties as they did make a statement as to the minimum level of penalty that the membership wanted to see in cases involving intentional major violations. Now the legislation that was adopted also distinguished for the first time legislatively between secondary and major cases. The secondary category is those things that do not result in any substantial competitive or recruiting advanl to the institution involved in the violation, or that are inadvertent or even technical violations, that is, most kinds of violations that don't net the institution any real benefit. People who are critical oj NCAA legislation say there isn't any program in the country out there that doesn't have some violations ( the rules. Well, that may be true, but if it is true, I think it is also true that the vast majority of our member institutions, and I'm thinking in the neighborhood of 80 to 90 percent, do not have anything
that would resemble a major or even an intentional violatJon of the rules. We are talking about the kin< of minor things that can occur in any program trying to stay up with the complex set of rules. Those
things are now categorized as secondary and it's hoped that they can be handled more efficiently.
Now keep in mind again as we work through all of this, we are dealing with legislation and rules that the membership of the association has adopted. We are not creating things where there are no rules to
go out and try to force. We are talking about rules that have been adopted, and as Bill indicated, there are areas in those rules that the membership feels shouldn't be there anymore. It is impossible to
enforce them or inappropriate to enforce them, and the legislative mechanism is there to get them out of the way and leave only those rules that still add importance to the membership. While those rules are
there, our mission as enforcement staff is to make sure that everybody is observing them and that no one
is gaining an advantage by failure to observe them. The secondary major distinction is the streamlining of the process in the infraction cases. Secondary cases can be processed now under the current rule structure by the staff essentially. As the head of the department, I have the authority to impose the kinds of penalties that were adopted by the membership and are set forth for secondary violations. I can only do that with the approval of a representative of the Committee on Infractions, and even after that, if the institution doesn't like what we have done, the opportunity is there for a full-blown hearing before the Committee on Infractions. Many of these violations are of a secondary nature, or the kind that you report on your own. You realize that you've had a mistake somewhere on the campus. You discover it, you write
to us and disclose either directly or through your conference that the thing has happened and there is no dispute about it. It occurred, you acknowledge it and essentially that you want to put it behind you. When those things occur now, the mechanism is there to do that quickly. We can respond to you and indicate what we believe is appropriate action.
In many cases, that response will be that the action you have taken is sufficient. We don't need to
go further. In the letter your institution describes to us what action has been taken on the campus to guard against the same thing happening again and where it appears the coach did something intentionally or showed disregard for the rules. Many times disciplinary action has been taken against that coach before the matter ever reaches the national office. So these are the kinds of things that can be moved along quickly. Until now, they have cluttered the agenda of the Committee on Infractions because the committee has had to take a look at those things before we could respond to the institution and confirm that sufficient action has
taken place, or let you know if something in the way of an admonishment or private reprimand was going to be forthcoming from the committee. I don't mean to minimize it by saying it's cluttered. Obviously, it's important. It's not necessary for the commit tee, which meets six or seven times a year to handle its case load, to be burdened by dealing with secondary cases. So now we can move those along. A number of
secondary violations are discovered in the process of trying to pursue the major things. The institution itself discovers them when it gets into its own investigation of the case. Those things lead to these big numbers that you read in the paper about such and such an institution responding to 68 or 105 allegations. Many times all but a handful of those are of the secondary type. With these new procedures we can strip the case of those secondary matters, treat them individually and independently, then allow the committee and the institution to focus energies on dealing with those that rise to the level of major violations.
When we deal with major violations, we now have for the first time coming out of the special convention a certain minimum floor of penalties that the membership has said it wants to see for these major cases.
Keep in mind again that the major cases are not going to be the technical, accidental type violations. We are talking now about violations that result in a significant advantage to the institution and violations
that are often willful or intentional, at least on the part of a booster or a coach, if not the institution's administration. The institution's responsibility is there for those kinds of intentional and willful violations. We now have minimum penalties adopted by the membership as the floor of what should happen to those institutions. They aren't absolutes. There can be additional penalties imposed, for example, even thpugh those minimum penalties require a two-year period of probation.
The committee still has considerable latitude and flexibility to do what I think it has done well over
the years, and that is to tailor the penalty to the case; to look at the facts in a particular case and impose penalties that strike at the heart of the kinds of things that occurred in that case. The committee will
also have the authority to deviate below the minimum threshold for a major violation if it believes that there are unique circumstances in the case. If it does believe that there are unique circumstances, then it will have the responsibility of explaining to the membership what those unique circumstances are. Why is this penalty less than the mimimum for a major violation? We will see that as we move into those cases. I
should say that in dealing with both the secondary and major violations, we are dealing with things that have occurred after September I, 1985. We have already processed a large number and are continuing right now to process a large number of secondary cases since September I, 1985. We have not yet processed to conclusion a major case wherein the violation took place after September I, 1985. So, the minimum penalty structure
really hasn't been used yet for a major case. Now obviously, even before the legislation was adopted, the Committee on Infractions was getting the message from the membership that serious penalties, severe penalties, serious consequences to violations, should be imposed and I think the track record of the major cases that
have been handled in the last several years, or at least the last few years, indicates clearly that the committee was getting the message and was imposing significant consequences for violations. Obviously, as we continue to finish those pre-September I, 1985 cases, you'll still see the kinds of major penalties that you would see even if they had occurred after September I, 1985.
The new legislation, also for the first time, put in place what some of our friends in the media have referred to as the death penalty for institutions that have a second major violation within five years of
the beginning of the penalty of a previous major violation. Death penalty is a little harsh. The
Committee on Infractions has some latitude as you recall, to require an institution to stop competing in
a particular sport for up to two years, but it doesn't have to do it for two years. Obviously, if there is a blatant disregard, that two years is a possibility somewhere down the road. I think initially, at least, you would see something less than that. Of course, we can always hope that penalty provision never has to be imposed, that its real effect is as a deterrent and institutions in a position of seeing themselves in jeopardy of facing a second major case would redouble the effort to make sure that violations of a
major kind do not occur in the 'program. We can hope that's the case, but we know realistically that there iSeY&Iychance that there will be somebody caught by the double major penalty. Also, in addition to the possibility of eliminating competition for a couple of years, the penalty could restrict additional grants, recruiting activities in the sport involved in the second violation, and would cause the institution to remo all of its staff members from NCAA committees, the council, the President's Commission, for a period of four years and would result in loss of voting privileges. It's a serious consequence. I hope its major impac~ will be as a deterrent. The procedures that are necessary to implement these repeat major violations are bei studied right now. You will recall a resolution adopted at the convention last January mandating a full study of the existing procedures be made and that a report be provided to the council and President's Commission.
All of that as well as new and innovative approaches to enforcement are being studied right now. I believe that there will be some legislative recommendations for your consideration at the January, 1987 convention and some probably will not be ready until the following convention. We are trying to take whatever steps we can, both on the recommendations of the enforcement staff and on the recommendations of the Committee on Infractions to make the procedures work better. We want to make sure that through all of this, due process is preserved for all of the individuals involved, the student-athletes, the coaches, the
institution itself, as well as the administrators of that institution. All of those guarantees must be preserved in whatever processes are developed. Those interests sometimes run contrary to the streamlining efforts that are being made, because often there is a very diverse interest between the student-athletes, maybe a coach who is no longer with the program and the institution itself. Sometimes that is going to make it difficult to process cases, but we want to develop procedures where those individuals are protected and the cases can move forward.
We are running out of time. We committed to try to finish up by 10 o'clock this morning and I would like to give you a brief opportunity to ask questions. I think it's important to note to you
that I don't mean to end this in a negative, but in dealing with enforcement last, we are really looking to try to provide a program that will help you. I believe if we can be effective, that is, process cases quickly and impose meaningful penalties, we can affect a decrease in the numbers of violations that occur 01 there. I think any population and public is going to be blessed with a certain number of people who just will violate rules, whether it's our society as a whole or whether it's intercollegiate athletics. But I also think there is an element out there now of coaches, some administrators perhaps, who are condoning violations under the theory that everybody is doing them or there is so little chance that we will get caugl that we can get away with it anyway. I hope it is that segment that we can bring on line and get them to ru violate the rules by having a'meaningful enforcement program. So, with that I would like to entertain any questions you might have.
BILL DIOGUARDI (Montclair State College):
We have some concern in Division III about the need for the student certification. Do you think we can get any relief on that? Also, drug testing is ridiculous for Division III.
I must say I don't agree that drug testing is ridiculous for Division III. I hope your institution doesn't have a problem in that area, but it is one with society. As far as the certification of eligibility goes, that is a constitutional requirement for all divisions. Now don't confuse the certification of eligibility with the affidavit program that went on last fall because that was a one-time exercise. I'm not sure how much fun any of us had with that. In answer to your specific questions as to Division 111, I think the Division III Steering Committee and the council are constantly looking at where we might need to develop specific programs for Division III as opposed to the rest of the membership.
OVAL JAYNES (Auburn University):
I would like to seek clarification. When legislation passed in January on the contact rule, which allows basically one visit per week for an institution, basically the legislation was involved with football recruiting. It has been interpreted to reflect the entire athletic staff of an institution, which means that if a woman's volleyball coach goes into the school during that recruiting period, that is
one visit per week for that institution. I wonder if there is any clarification from the council in your opinion to this legislation.
That's a good question and we have a concern about how to handle the application of that rule with other sports. At the last Administrative Committee call, the most recent one, we discussed how that rule would affect the coaches from other sports, and we reached a tentative agreement. The Administrative Committee felt that the full Division I Steering Committee ought to discuss that issue in August. The rule isn't effective until August 1 and it relates only to football, so you don't have your recruiting contact period until later. So they are going to discuss the whole thing. If you are interested, as long as you
understand that this is just a tentative answer because they ended up not taking any position, they discussed the possibility, if he or she is a multisport prospect, to go in the same day of the week. You couldn't
have the track coach coming in later in the week talking to the same prospect, if he is also a prospect for football. But if the prospect is solely in the sport of track, then it wouldn't matter. You wouldn't have to go in the same week.
BILL CARR (University of Florida):
In response to the gentleman from Division III a few moments ago about the concern directly relating to certain procedures that are applied uniformly to all divisions, Isimply want to say I concur. I, as a Division I respresentative, cannot say what is applicable and appropriate for Division III, nor do I
want to. Although my time in this profession is limited, I would encourage the individuals who continue in leadership in intercollegiate athletics to acknowledge the pluralism of American higher education and to move with dispatch to the federated concept.